Bump Fee - Error! What's the fix?

[LucyFurr]

Due to the sudden spike in the mempool one of my TX was stuck and lagging for a few hours now and when I tried the Bump fee (increase fee) by choosing decrease payment instead of preserve, then I ran into this error.



And what does it mean "It doesn't meet the rules"? Is it about the node setting that I am currently connected to? So switching to a different server will fix this?

P.S: All the UTXOs used were confirmed, so it's not about pending parent transactions.

[Charles-Tim]

If you use preserve payment, it will work. It has been long that I noticed this on Electrum. I use preserve payment.


Something similar has been reported before: https://github.com/spesmilo/electrum/issues/8685

[Zaguru12]

I think the server error is simply because your replacement of transaction doesn’t meet the server policy. So start by changing the server, check the settings and see if the server is on automatic and the switch to manual and select from the list of servers there.

But before doing so try to look at the second error of insufficient funds which is that the server needs the total transaction fee of the transaction you’re replacing must be lower than the new transaction fee. This server might be using BIp25 rules which is the fee to be payed for replacement of transactions must be higher than the total fees of all transactions to be replaced in the mempool.

So consider paying much higher fee, if it doesn’t works then go for change of server

[Charles-Tim]

I think the server error is simply because your replacement of transaction doesn’t meet the server policy. So start by changing the server, check the settings and see if the server is on automatic and the switch to manual and select from the list of servers there.

It will not work, the error will still be there until he changed to preserve payment.

But before doing so try to look at the second error of insufficient funds which is that the server needs the total transaction fee of the transaction you’re replacing must be lower than the new transaction fee. This server might be using BIp25 rules which is the fee to be payed for replacement of transactions must be higher than the total fees of all transactions to be replaced in the mempool.

Electrum will increase the fee by default. For example, if you set the fee to 1 sat/vbyte when you broadcasted the transaction, you will see 2 sat/vbyte when you want to bump the fee. If you set the fee to 5 sat/vbyte, you will see 6 sat/vbyte when you want to increase the fee. But you can customize the the fee rate to the amount you want.

[khaled0111]

Do you mind sharing the ID of the unconfirmed transaction?
If you can’t do that, which is totally understandable, can you, at least, share more details like the transaction size, the initial fee rate you paid and to how much did you increase it? This can help us better understand what is causing the problem and why you're getting that error message.

It can’t be an insufficient funds problem since you chose the "decrease payment" option.
For the time being, start by manually switching servers and see if this solves the issue.

[BitMaxz]

Why not do what electrum error say?
Have you tried to manually choose UTXO?

Electrum have option to do that just make sure all UTXO are already confirmed.

I don't know if switching to another node would work so better try what they suggested above you can also try make unsign transaction on watch-only wallet and sign it from your main wallet.

[PX-Z]

.. when I tried the Bump fee (increase fee) by choosing decrease payment instead of preserve

Can someone tell if this really work on some case, decrease payment instead of preserve. AFAIK bump fee usually work as it says, same amount but much larger fee. As the electrum recommends, it probably only work on increasing fees.

[khaled0111]

Can someone tell if this really work on some case, decrease payment instead of preserve. AFAIK bump fee usually work as it says, same amount but much larger fee. As the electrum recommends, it probably only work on increasing fees.

I did it before and it worked.
Technically, there is no reason why it won’t.
Bump fee is nothing but canceling the unconfirmed transaction by replacing it with a new one. You only need to pay higher fees and make sure the replacement transaction spend at least one of the intial transaction inputs.

Preserve payment means you will send the same amount and use other UTXO(s) to cover the extra fees. While decrease payment means you will deduct the extra fees from the amount to be sent. This option comes in hand when sending the max amount and you don’t have any coins left to cover the extra fees.

[hosemary]

This server might be using BIp25 rules which is the fee to be payed for replacement of transactions must be higher than the total fees of all transactions to be replaced in the mempool.

Right, but to be more accurate:
The total fee you pay for the replacement transaction must be higher than the the sum of the total fees paid for the transactions that will be evicted from the mempool after the replacment and the minimum fee required for its own bandwidth.

Electrum will increase the fee by default. For example, if you set the fee to 1 sat/vbyte when you broadcasted the transaction, you will see 2 sat/vbyte when you want to bump the fee.

Electrum increases the fee rate of the replacement transaction by default, but that may be insufficient. As suggested by the error message, OP should be able to broadcast the transaction simply by increasing the fee.

[nc50lc]

P.S: All the UTXOs used were confirmed, so it's not about pending parent transactions.

That's only an issue for CPFP's effectiveness.
But since you're using RBF, the problem is with your transaction's children.

If there are already a lot of unconfirmed transactions that spent your transaction's output (and their outputs' output, or even just one),
those will all be evicted from your server's and most node's mempool, so to prevent such network spam attack vector, RBF's rule requires to include their total transaction fee to your replacement transaction.
And that's a problem with how Electrum computes the new required transaction fee as it can only take in account of your transaction's fee.

You may manually compute it by checking all of its children transaction's "absolute fee" (not fee rate, use a Blockexporer)
Or the lazy method of just going for small additions until you reach the point that it works.

[Charles-Tim]

Electrum increases the fee rate of the replacement transaction by default, but that may be insufficient. As suggested by the error message, OP should be able to broadcast the transaction simply by increasing the fee.

Yes, I know the fee may not be enough, that is the reason I included that the fee can then be customized. I increased the fee but it does not work, and this is not the first time that I noticed this. Even if the fee is increased excessively, the same error is the there until it is changed to preserve payment.

You may manually compute it by checking all of its children transaction's "absolute fee" (not fee rate, use a Blockexporer)
Or the lazy method of just going for small additions until you reach the point that it works.

Did you tried it and it worked? It is not working as I tried it up to 600 sat/vbyte. Just one child transaction with 1 input and 2 outputs.

Worth knowing that preserve payment is the default and it will not show the error, although preserve payment is different from decrease payment.

[hosemary]

Even if the fee is increased excessively, the same error is the there until it is changed to preserve payment.

Are you saying it's not possible to use the "decrease payment' option when bumping the fee at all?
As long as the replacement transaction is valid and meets nodes policy rules (including BIP125 requirement), the server should accept the transaction and broadcast it.

[Charles-Tim]

Are you saying it's not possible to use the "decrease payment' option when bumping the fee at all?
As long as the replacement transaction is valid and meets nodes policy rules (including BIP125 requirement), the server should accept the transaction and broadcast it.

Exactly that is what I mean. Maybe I am wrong because I use the testnet, but not likely. I will later try it on the mainet to know if it will work or not. But the testnet has always been like the mainet in everything that I have tested before which is the reason I use it to explain something like this.

[LucyFurr]

Eventually, TX confirmed on its own without the need for the bump fee.

Even if the fee is increased excessively, the same error is the there until it is changed to preserve payment.

Are you saying it's not possible to use the "decrease payment' option when bumping the fee at all?
As long as the replacement transaction is valid and meets nodes policy rules (including BIP125 requirement), the server should accept the transaction and broadcast it.

Looks like it, I tried a few times and the same error appears so it must be a bug or something because the bump fee should work irrespective of decrease fee or preserve fee as long as the fee paid is higher than the previous one right?

Let's say if I used 1sat/vb and now increasing it to 2sat/vb, I don't find any reason why it shouldn't broadcast it.

[Charles-Tim]

the bump fee should work irrespective of decrease fee or preserve fee as long as the fee paid is higher than the previous one right?

Yes. I have just one UTXO and I spent the UTXO in a transaction. While the transaction is not yet confirmed, I increased the fee and it worked as the transaction got replaced by another one with the higher fee. That is decrease payment automatically even if you set it to preserve payment and it worked.

[hosemary]

Let's say if I used 1sat/vb and now increasing it to 2sat/vb, I don't find any reason why it shouldn't broadcast it.

This depends on transactions (virtual) size. Note that BIP125 refers to the absolute fee, not the fee rate.
If the fee rate for the original transaction is 1 sat/vbyte and the replacement transaction has the same virtual size and is made with the fee rate of 2 sat/vbyte, it meets the BIP125 requirements and should be accepted by the nodes.

[nc50lc]

You may manually compute it by checking all of its children transaction's "absolute fee" (not fee rate, use a Blockexporer)
Or the lazy method of just going for small additions until you reach the point that it works.

Did you tried it and it worked? It is not working as I tried it up to 600 sat/vbyte. Just one child transaction with 1 input and 2 outputs.

Of course, I've tried that before and did a fresh test after reading this in case there's a bug in the v4.6beta version that I'm using.

Here's a test (testnet4):

• I've sent a sample parent @1.43sat/vb (200sat fee) to be bumped in the next step.
  Link: mempool.space/testnet4/tx/aa70c7c824294dbee03e5012669406be1bcf273a95511085b328bd7654bddcae (mempool.space may remove the "replaced" note after a while and just show the replacement)
• Next, I spent its output with a child transaction @28.4 sat/vB (3100sat)
  So to bump the transaction above, it'll have to add: 3100sat on top of its own fee and the new transaction's minimum fee.
  Since it was replaced in my test, I've secured a screenshot of that to-be-evicted transaction:
  
• Now for the test, I've bumped the parent transaction's fee to 3525sat which is 3sat more than what is required by the RBF rule. (3100 + 200 + 222 = 3522)
  That is where most users get it wrong.
  Link: mempool.space/testnet4/tx/5da5e1fb6730edcef66a8a1b0310371b5de00f52367a6ffc5f1836906a1023b8
• With it (the parent) being replaced, the child is now evicted from mempools that relayed the replacement parent transaction.
  Link: mempool.space/testnet4/tx/a0b1ac2fe240ff230f23fd26f6f5e988cfab6652960d1bf95fd4783cb2d94565 (the txn in the screenshot, now missing)

That's how RBF rules work, if it doesn't work at your end, it may have been to your mention of fee rate since the addition should be based from the child's "absolute fee".
The "Preserve Payment" has nothing to do with the rule, it's just how the user's preference on how to add the required transaction fee.
If it's prevented by that option due to lacking change or other UTXO, he will not get to the point to see that error screenshot that he shared in the OP.

OP's case could also be brought by the server that he's using, because they can enforce higher minimum transaction fee that'll affect the required fee to bump.